Illegal lists, lists over the points limit, extra models on the table… it is obvious that these sort of things happen and happen often. So what is a tournament organizer to do? It is pointless to debate the intentions of the error, whether it was deliberate or not is not the issue. Likewise, discovering these errors after the fact is not pleasant for anyone involved. Ideally errors of this nature are discovered prior the start of the event. At that point, legitimate mistakes can easily be corrected and any confusion resulting from odd or complex event rules can be avoided. The problem lies with the intentional errors. The errors made willfully to achieve an upper hand, no matter how slight it may be.

Ultimately, the responsibility lies with the tournament organizer(s) to enforce a level and fair playing field for all. Certain aspects and personality flaws will always be beyond an organizer’s control, but there are steps everyone can take to ensure a pleasurable gaming experience for all.

Let’s look at the pros and cons of a few different methods:

1. Early List Submission

In theory, early list submission seems like a good idea. Using this method, players are required to submit lists on, or before, a specific date for verification and possible revision. Most importantly this method allows tournament organizers to make sure lists adhere to the rules of the event, don’t include any units from illegal sources and are within the prescribed points limit.

In smaller events this very well may be the best solution. Lists could be collected, checked, stamped, duplicated and then returned to the players prior to the start of the event. This places some additional burden and cost on the shoulders of the event organizers, but in most cases it should be manageable.

The problems with this method mainly stem from player procrastination and the lack of a unified submission format. Tournament gamers are meticulous when it comes to crafting army lists (in terms of both tactical planning and physical presentation), and most are often swapping out units and changing wargear right up until the night before the event. You also always run the risk of a new codex or official FAQ being released that will drastically alter a submitted army list. That said, a majority of these issues can be resolved by setting a definitive cutoff date for army list changes and allowable new rules for the event. Furthermore, an event needs a dedicated verification judge that is willing to handle the inevitable back and forth with players.

As an event grows, this method becomes less and less appealing. Policing up 120-240 army lists, dealing with corrections, answering questions and replicating lists for the event starts to become a monumental task. Without a definitive and restrictive method of list submission, and an extremely regimented method of list distribution, tournament organizers are asking for a massive headache.

Final Thought: Fantastic for smaller events. Beneficial in catching honest mistakes. Becomes unwieldy in larger events, although not impossible. Requires a dedicated verification judge. Without a solid set of controls, still allows for ‘sleight-of-hand’ intentional cheating/list swapping.

2. Day of, Judge Verified Lists

Smaller events have the luxury of examining and verifying army lists the day of the event. This method allows players to make changes and tweaks to their lists right up until the last minute. While it doesn’t allow for pre-compliance with event rules, most events that would use this method are generally comprised of local players who are already accustom to playing the game in a specified manner.

Another benefit of this method is that it actually checks the lists the players arrive with. Lists can be verified, marked and returned without the added burden of replication and distribution.

While extremely similar to early list submission, this method is really only functional in small, local events. Larger events would be hard-pressed to employ this approach. Another possible drawback to this method is that list verification often doesn’t begin until after the first game is under way, and any errors discovered would still have some impact on the event.

Final Thought: Fantastic for very small events. Real-time army list verification. Often isn’t completed prior to the event starting. Impossible to implement in larger events.

3. Opponent Verified Lists

One possible solution for larger events is to involve the players themselves. Good tournament players already take a minute or two to study their opponent’s list…so what if you were to ask them to verify the list in the process? While in theory this method works, in practice it could be quite cumbersome and annoying for the players. In larger tournaments, the scramble between rounds to find your table assignment, move your army and get settled is already a rushed process. You are also subjecting the same list to verification multiple times without any control on lists/list swapping in-between games.

While this method gets around some of the issues associated with early list submission, it will also add a considerable amount of time to the event and could still result in some serious list manipulation. While asking the players to share in the responsibility of army list checking is perfectly acceptable notion, this method shouldn’t entirely absolve the tournament organizer of his/her obligation.

Final Thought: While it retains some benefits from the day of verification process, it doesn’t really address the issues of list consistency. Added burden on the players across the day.

4. Hybrid?

Of the three methods listed above, not one fully addresses the issues of army list verification in a large tournament setting. In larger events, the issues of player procrastination, list submission deadlines, post-deadline changes and the sheer amount of communication required all exponentially increase.

One solution I have heard suggested is an approach combining elements from the day of and opponent verification methods. Prior to the start of the first round, just following table assignments, a 15 minute period would be added where players would be responsible for looking over and verifying their opponent’s army lists. Barring any issues, the game would begin as normal. During the first game judges would visit each table, collecting army lists and stamping them verified for the remainder of the day.

While this method alleviates some of the consistency and repetition issues of the previous proposal, it still places a majority of the responsibility in the hands of the players. It is debatable whether or not this is an acceptable, but it might be a satisfactory compromise in regards to larger events.

Final Thought: Undecided. Errors could postpone the start of some games.

What are your thoughts on the matter? What methods of army list verification have you employed? What happens when the method fails? What can be done to save the sanity of a tournament organizer?

27 comments:

Pre-submission would be my preference. Day-of verification places huge pressures on the event staff as people are checking in -- time pressures that can lead to mistakes/omissions. Opponent verification I see as not only a burden on the players, but also as creating conditions which combined with some players' competitive natures can lead to enmity at the table. As to saving the TO's sanity? Having a dedicated, competent team, being well organized, and having thought things out as well as possible ahead of time.

@Hudson - I am in general agreement with all these statements. I really only see day of verification working in smaller events. Opponent verification is sort of a pie-in-the-sky idea. It places too much faith on people being cordial and willing.

There are a number of examples where events have had a dedicated, competent and organized staff yet still had major issues involving lists. There are limits to what a staff can do. If someone is willfully dishonest, they most likely are going to as quiet about it as possible, or look for other ways to gain the upper hand.

So, if pre-submission is the way to go, what measures can be taken to normalize that process and make list verification easier on the staff? You can't really force people to use Army Builder or guarantee any common format. In order for pre-submission to work, you have to keep the submitted lists, mark them and then return them to the players prior to the event. What is the most efficient way to go about this?

For example, AdeptiCon's 2011 Warhammer 40K Championships will have 240 players/lists, and even just accounting for the Friday night 4-round qualifier, you are talking about 1440 copies of army lists (4 for opponents, one for the staff and one for the player).

No question, pre-submission is the most controlled method - it's a matter of refining the process and figuring out the best way to go about it. This becomes especially important when you are talking about large events.

I recall a friend of mine talking about some Australian Tournaments being pre-submission format for list approval. I'm pretty sure he was talking on the Fantasy side of things, but even still, I'd think the same premise would apply. I'll see what I can dig up and share.

The main problem with me verifing my opponents list is that I might not know that army very well. If I have to go through and check every entry vs the codex for points costs, legality, etc. perhaps with multiple codexes with allies 15 minutes might not be enough time. People are more likely just to gloss over it than really check.

@eriochrome - That is definitely one of the main concerns with that method. It had been suggested a couple of times in various forms and deserved some thought - but like I said above, more a Utopian dream than anything else.

Some thoughts on pre-submission guidelines: Specify that folks submit their lists in PDF format. Then as Stelek said, get a few Army Builder experts to recreate the lists to verify. Print the lists either using special paper as Stelek suggested or use AB's watermark feature. Behead people caught cheating -- oh OK, maybe that's a bit messy and impractical.

@Matthias - My suggestion would be to create an online form for the submission of your Army Lists. This could range from the very simple (a spreadsheet system where you put in the name of the unit, the number and the points value) to the very complex (talking to AB about integrating AB into your web-submission so that they can build the army, online, on your website, and then submit it. Then, since your online form would include things like drop-downs where the user selects their codex, you can group the armies by codex and have an expert of that codex review them.

This is thinking big, of course, but having AB incorporated into your registration (behind the wall so you can only access it after you have paid your fee) would be the best way to do it.

The other advantage of integrating AB into an online tool is that players can "sign in" to their registration and change their army if they wish. You have a cutoff, perhaps two days prior to the event, after which time the armies are "locked." Then print out the armies on special paper like Stelek said, and have them in each players registration pack when they check in.

I would love innovation/integration of this nature. I've had similar thoughts myself (in regards to using an online form of submission).

The idea of actually getting Army Builder involved is a great one. I think this is definitely something worth mentioning to them. Getting AB involved either online or via some other control would be a massive time saver.

The other idea Hank and I were throwing about was some sort of bar coding. Like if AB printed out a validation bar code on the bottom of the sheet that contained a points validation or something (honestly not sure what sort of data or how much data you can include in a bar code). Then they could market a small verification software package for TOs or something.

Looks like someone in the Dakka thread has come to the exact same conclusion. If Army Builder were to create an online tool which would use the Army Builder back end, which they could license to Tournaments, that would be a great revenue stream for them.

Picture the process:

Attendee goes to tournament website. They fill out their registration, which includes a user name and password. They pay their fee. They are taken to their Army Builder Online (don't sue me!) screen. They build their army. They submit it.

Later, if they want, they go back to the tournament website. They sign in again. They update their army, they resubmit it.

On the day of the tournament, they find their army printed out on high quality watermarked paper.

Well, Adepticon has the pull to ask for this from AB and have them listen. I'm sure that if you enlisted the help of Mike B, WarGamesCon, etc. you could come up with a unified request for a software that would meet your needs (including the flexibility to accomodate different tournaments).

This is one issue that I think all tourney gamers everywhere can agree on.

I am speaking in regards to data files as presented in an online form or actually being included in an Army Builder online app. Not an expert on the subject, but pretty sure 40K stats and unit names are off limits? Maybe not.

Not sure but maybe they can build it into the tourney management software they are working on. Had some discussions along those lines with them last year. Makes the most sense for them as they have the datafiles resource to manage the verification.

I think it could be done with the client software, just build the verification mechanic into the client, enduser would still be responsbile as the datafile in use would be seperate still, and have the client software transmit the roster. Course that requires the attendee to own or have access to army builder.

There seems to be no better mechanism than submit, enter into AB, and return at check-in. It's a huge PITA and some percentage of people submitting at check-in will happen, as will "I was planning to do that, but didn't get finished, so I'm doing this instead." And those should be allowable states.

I had 26 at-check-in or otherwise late lists this year, which almost was enough to make me give up the whole exercise. That perecentage is a real PITA and generates half a lost day to verify.

And correct lists is only part of the problem. People play with extra models, usually by accident. I had a kid who had an extra 30 Ork Boyz on the table and no opponent noticed until round 6. Granted, the kid was on low tables, but that's a pretty big discrepancy that I would expect other players to notice.

People swap models for models that are better for them in the game, usually with malice aforethought in an effort to actively cheat. I have never had this happen at a high table, but I've had it happen twice at lower tables. This is pretty impossible to catch for the judges, and not simple for the vast majority of players to catch, either (checking pregame doesn't help, as the guys in Transports or Reserve aren't on the board to check).

So verifying that the points total on the submitted lists is correct is ultimately the easy part; this just takes time and effort. Verifying that the models actually in play match the list submitted is a whole other problem, and one that cannot reasonably rest in the hands of the judges due to time constraints.

Jwolf: What would you say is the attitude at the championship towards calling a judge? Is it encouraged? Frowned upon? Do people call judges frequently for minor dispute resolution or is it only when a serious issue arises?

Why not make it a requirement to exchange army lists with your opponent. You could add as a component of Sports that my opponent had a easily readable and accurate army list that matched the army he played. Even if you do checkin, etc - it comes down to the player actually matching his army to his list, it being what he submitted, not having a different copy for the game, etc. I think it has to be checked at each game.

It also comes down to the players enforcing it. Personal story: The only time in what is close to 100 major tournament games I had an issue with opponents list was at the Adept Team Tourney 2 years ago - when the list indicated plasma guns that miraculously turned into Melta guns when we had land raiders. We called him on it and he refused to change it. We didn't say anything until after the game to the judges - and it did make a difference in the outcome of the game. That was OUR fault for not bringing it up then and there. The judges handled it well.

The point is - even if you check the army lists - the players have to double check - why not just have that be the expectation. Each player present his list - go over it - answer any questions - make the codex available if asked.

@ Purgatus - It appears that people call judges more commonly than I would. The frequency varies by players; some call over on minor disputes and others only on more significant issues. If a player constantly requires a judge, we just post a judge there - no stigma to that in my book. That's as close as I can come to answering what I think your question is; if that doesn't suffice, rephrase the question and I'll give it another try.

@Aldonis - Might be able to spell it out better it's part of every event rule set at AdeptiCon. Maybe put a reference to that in the 2011 Conduct Policy. From last year - "You must have 6 copies of your army list. These must be typed and correct. 1 will be provided to the judge, 1 for your reference and the other 4 will be given to your opponents."

Making a note that we are going to have to tweak it to account for whatever is determined for list verification.

We have also provided an army builder station for use at the event that sees a lot of action and goes through a lot of paper over the weekend.

I always provide my opponents a copy of my list, requested or no, and expect the same in return. I definitely think it should be a requirement - it's not that much hassle for a player to print 6 copies instead of 2, or it really shouldn't be.

@TKE - I don't think Hank is suggesting that as a new requirement - this has always been a requirement at AdeptiCon. I think he was aiming more at generally covering Army Lists and Verification basics in the Code of Conduct as opposed to each specific event.

At that point you can't really call out a specific number of lists since it varies from event to event.

I wish I could give you the number of, or percentage of, players that show up the morning of an event without a list or a list scratched out the back of an event flyer. Trust me, it's higher than you'd think. Luckily, we have always provided an Army Builder station (thanks to Lone Wolf) and the hotel has a free to use business center with a copier.

I have encountered a fair few players turning up to events without enough lists myself, and I've always felt there should be some sort of penalty for this...though I have never really known what I'd consider fair punishment. Certainly something relatively light, but it's hard to say without testing.

Even in a small tournament like Necromunda, I really can't stress enough the importance of early submission/verification. The first year I spent almost half the tournie checking and double-checking lists, last year I was smart enough to ask entrants to submit at least a few days before.

This made registration quicker, my jobs as organizer easier, and the players didn't spend half and hour twiddling their thumbs before the first scenario.

For those of you who are interested in a change of pace for list building, I really recommend BattleScribe. It's free, easy to use, and players can share army lists electronically without the hassle of deconstructing a PDF list. I did a quick review of it a couple months back:http://empireofghosts.blogspot.com/2010/07/review-battlescribe-army-roster-builder.html